Have you actually used the Galaxy Nexus (which should be the only 4.0 phone) It has no lag/ stutter. The same goes for most of the dual-core Android phones.
I've used the Galaxy Nexus, it very rarely stutters, but it's still laggy. Note the distinction - Android 4.0 can keep a consistently high framerate on the newest dual-core hardware, but there is still a noticeable delay between input and output.
This is most noticeable when dragging things around - the output always trails your finger movement by just that much - not enough to appear extremely egregious, but enough that iOS still feels more responsive.
Google has done great work, but they ain't done yet.
This may be the case, and I admit Android is still a little bit behind iOS in that regard. What I despise, however, is the article's tone, which tries to make it look like this minor difference is important to the user, and he will hate Android for it. I would guess the percentage of users disturbed by this is maybe 1%. There are so many other major differences between Android and iOS that are much more relevant to the user, like lock-in, choice of different handsets etc.
> What I despise, however, is the article's tone, which tries to make it look like this minor difference is important to the user, and he will hate Android for it.
The major thing that would prevent me switching to Android is precisely this issue. I've used a Galaxy Nexus, and while it has undoubtedly improved greatly, it is still not really there. Maybe Android 5...
I suspect that it's one of these things that you'll only be really irritated by if you've used a device with proper smooth scrolling for an extended period.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. The "little things" is what has put Apple so far ahead of the competition in so many places. While other companies are content to reach the 90% product, Apple has consistently achieved the 99%, and consumers have answered with their wallets.
The key to beating Apple, or even just matching Apple, is to deliver the same attention to detail, and things like touch lag is a major component of this.
Think about the MacBook sleep indicator. It has a soft "breathing" rhythm modeled on the frequency of human breathing. How many users do you think are actively looking at the sleep indicator on their laptop? Yet it has become an iconic and beloved feature of the product. Many competitors have tried to clone the "sleeping light", yet none of them could even be arsed enough to get the feel right.
Same goes for the "shines through metal" indicator lights on MacBooks webcams/battery indicators. Would a user consciously notice if they got rid of it? Probably not, but its presence lends a fit and finish that communicates quality.
> "which tries to make it look like this minor difference is important to the user"
That's just it though. It is important to the user, though you'd never know it if your only metric for measuring user happiness are conscious observations. Very few users can articulate "the time lag between input and action is too great" in those words - but I'm willing to bet 90% can feel it, and will fail to articulate it to a focus group or similar. The difference is magnified if the user is comparing the two products side by side.
I've heard it expressed in many ways. It's "laggy" (which is the most accurate term for it), it's "not snappy", it's "slow" (which is inaccurate, but the layman generally doesn't know the distinction between speed and lag). Sometimes a user will feel it and can't articulate it at all!
I'm willing to bet, if you could find someone who has never used either iOS or Android, and hand them one of each device, loaded with just a simple scroll list. Let them interact with it, and ask them something as simple as "which one felt better to use". Who do you think will win? One product has just won the entire contest by visceral reaction alone, before the conscious brain has even kicked in. Details matter.
> "There are so many other major differences between Android and iOS that are much more relevant to the user, like lock-in, choice of different handsets etc."
This is the RIM angle, and I'd have thought that by 2012 we'd have put this one to rest already. Competing on functionality and features doesn't win anything. "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame", anyone? The iPod, the iPhone, and hell, the MacBook all came out into a market where there already exist functionally superior products. Remember the guffaws when Steve marched on stage with an EDGE phone when the industry was already rolling out 3G? That sure put the kibosh on the iPhone launch, eh?
This is the problem with most technical types - we think the decision matrix is 80% function 20% experience, but in reality it's the opposite. Apple has taken this realization and made hundreds of billions betting on it.
The whole point I'm making is much better communicated in a great book: The Design of Everyday Things by Donald A. Norman. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. He's not a software or even electronics guy, but rather industrial design.
In the book, he posits a thesis: that a product is perceived at three levels: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. We're talking about the visceral reaction here - the immediate, subconscious reaction a user gets when they interact with Android vs. iOS. The texture of the screen, the responsiveness of the UI, the reaction of elements to touch. Without locking down the visceral reaction, your product will never feel "right".
I agree with you to some point that Apple's focus on quality has played a large part in their success. However, an equally large amount has been due to heavy branding/advertising of Apple as the superior, luxury brand. This influences people's feeling of the device more than the difference between constantly running at 60fps or sometimes dropping to 50fps.
Apple users are willing to pay for this. It is comparable to paying €1000 for a handbag. People often justify that it is worth it by pointing out the superior quality of an LV bag, which is true, but it wouldn't matter much to them if the brand wasn't known at all.
You're talking about the percentage of consumers who use price as a signal for quality. I'd agree this happens, but for the signal to exist in the first place the quality must usually be there. If Apple hadn't focused on the quality of their products first, no amount of branding would have put them in this position.
Again, I have to heavily disagree with your post. It's far too easy to simply dismiss Apple's success as one of shrewd marketing. It's way too easy to simply wave Apple off as expensive baubles for image-conscious, vain consumers.
> "but it wouldn't matter much to them if the brand wasn't known at all."
But yet, it would. Consumers can feel quality when they come upon it. The LV bag without the luxury branding would still be far more successfully than a bag of lesser-quality and equally nameless brand.
Going back to what I started mentioning with the last post - a product is perceived at 3 levels. Visceral, behavioral, and reflective. We've already covered the visceral part.
Behavioral is the actual function of the product. How quickly does the kettle boil water? Does that teapot drip when poured? Does my phone actually send the SMS or will it leave me in limbo with no confirmation?
Reflective is the higher, consciously engaging aspect of the product. Does it make me look good to my peers? Does it bring back memories of a bygone era? Does it appeal to my ego? etc etc.
You're positing the Apple's claim to success can be largely accounted for via the reflective angle - whereas I'm saying it's impossible to be successful on that angle alone. A truly legendary product is wildly successful at all 3, and executing on all 3 is what has powered Apple's meteoric rise.
Android in its current state really nails behavioral, but it's half-assing visceral, and the reflective is practically non-existent.
Not from your post, but to aggregate my reply. To the mention that Android shouldn't be playing Apple's game by Apple's rules. These aren't Apple's rules. These are time-tested rules consumers will apply to any product they come across.
> The key to beating Apple, or even just matching Apple, is to deliver the same attention to detail, and things like touch lag is a major component of this.
I'd say the key to beating Apple is to not play their game, on their turf, according to their rules.
